Who You Gonna Call? Q&A With Software Freedom Law Center's Eben Moglen

By Jack M. Germain
Jul 23, 2010 5:00 AM PT

The Software Freedom Law Center provides free legal representation and other law-related services to
open source software developers. The organization began
in 2005 under the direction of Eben Moglen, a professor of law and
legal history at Columbia University Law School.

His law center represents many of the most important and
well-established free software and open source projects. The SFLC's
goal is to help non-profit FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software)
projects succeed.

The free legal assistance provides programmers and open source
projects with sound legal and organizational structures. The SFLC's
goal is to protect the public's right to access, use and develop
software, according to Moglen, the founding director.

The SFLC received initial funding of US$4 million from the Open
Source Development Labs. LinuxInsider met with Moglen to discuss the
situations the SFLC faces in pursuing its legal goals.

LinuxInsider: What led to the formation of the The Software Freedom Law Center?

Eben Moglen: About 15 years ago I started focusing on areas involving
free software licensing issues and related use issues. In 2004 I
proposed to Stewart Cohen, CEO of OSDL (Open Source Developers Lab)
that I lend my legal expertise involving software licensing to their
member companies. We would provide a place that would provide legal
assistance. I proposed to the companies that we would have problems
solved before problems happened. We began this plan on the first of
Febrary in 2005.

LIN: How is your office organized?

Moglen: We are an actual nonprofit entity with lawyers on staff. I
have six lawyers working in New York City and two lawyers working in
India. These people are salaried, working full time on behalf of our
clients within the structure of the organization.

LIN: Is your organization's case load strictly pro bono, or is there a
fee structure used depending on the case and company involved?

Moglen: We are essentially a pro bono entity. With almost no
exceptions, we do not charge the people for whom we provide the
services. We do have a small subsidiary which is a commercial law firm
of Moglen and Ravicher that performs services to for-profit clients.
And 100 percent of that profit is donated back to our non-profit
organization. So we have a very small commercial profit, almost
insignificant. The majority of our work is paid for by our donars.
(Daniel B. Ravicher is the Law Center's legal director.)

LIN: Does an open source software developer contact your organization
for assistance directly?

Moglen: We primarily respond to requests for assistance from projects
and legal groups who reach out and seek our help. These clients are
open source projects or software companies. Sometimes these requests
for services involve companies who believe they have been challenged
or threatened. Sometimes the requests are from companies that need a
lawyer to advise them on how to seek our help in organizing. These
companies are already functioning and need a lawyer to advice or
counsel them on how to structure their operation.

LIN: What is the best way to contact the Freedom Law Center?

Moglen: A very large number of our clients come to us as a
consequence of direct contact using our email address of
help@softwarefreedom.org. Sometimes we are referred by one project to
another or one company.

LIN: Do you ever initiate legal action on your own?

Moglen: Occasionally we see a situation out in the world where we
think people would benefit from our legal advice, and we go to them
and offer our assistance. In that case we contact the company and
offer our assistance.

LIN: What are some of the current or recent cases that we might
recognize for their notoriety?

Moglen: We mostly are not litigants. Our primary task is to help
projects do what they want to do in making their software work with
greater efficiency and increase the prospects that the software will
be used by people around the world. Much of our work involves giving
advice to clients. We don't say who those clients are or what advice
we give them because of the need for confidentiality.

LIN: Can you offer an example from a recent enforcement effort?

Moglen: Sometimes our clients need us to help them enforce their
licenses. And sometimes the process of enforcing licenses requires
lawsuits. One client of ours is BusyBox, which is a small suite of
code that creates a positive environment on top of an operating system
kernel which is very useful when embedded inside the stack or inside
appliance devices.

The BusyBox project asked us to provide license enforcement for them.
Their license is the GPL, so we do attempt to contact companies around
the world that manufacture devices using BusyBox to honor the GPL.
Sometimes companies are unresponsive to our inquiries. They don't
answer our letters or phone calls. And only under those circumstances
we sometimes sue people.

LIN: Can you gives us some of the particulars involving the GPL license case?

Moglen: Back in December we sued Samsung, Panasonic, Best Buy and a
number of other manufactures and distributors of electronics because
those manufacturers were embedding BusyBox and not obeying the GPL.
Most of that involved televisions. Most cases were consolidated and
presented in the U.S. District Court for the southern district of New
York and are working their way through pretrial motions. I expect all
of those cases to settle on various standards over the next few
months.

LIN: Is there a type of recurring legal issue that you see with open
source developers that drives a continuing set of cases to your
doorstep?

Moglen: Most of the issues involve working with unorganized projects
where programmers come together. We help them set up non-profit
organizations that have limited liabilities. That's not a recurring
problem. But it is a situation that many projects face. I wouldn't
call these things recurring issues. They are matters that companies
need help in setting up.

LIN: Where do you see your organization headed? Will you continue the
pro bono service, or is there a role for you in lobbying within the
software industry?

Moglen; No, we are not a lobbyist organization. I'm organized as a law
firm. There are limitations against lobbying. We do not get involved
in legislation or candidates for office. But we do contact governments
and government agencies in the United States and around the world on
behalf of our clients on the idea of free and open software. But we do
not primarily support lobbying.

I do suspect that over the next five years we will primarily remain as
we are now, a law firm and a non-profit legal services entity. I aim
to provide the best possible legal services through the broadest
possible range of clients. I expect us to continue operating in the
United States and in India. I also do expect us to expand our
operation into other parts of the world.